tv The O Reilly Factor FOX News February 10, 2017 8:00pm-9:01pm PST
877-225-8587. can't wait to hear from you. especially those that love me or hate me. that is all the time we have left this evening, have a great week. we'll see you back here on monday. ♪ >> eric: hi, i'm eric bolling in for bill o'reilly. thanks for watching us tonight. let's get straight to our top story. the trump administration's battle over national security. during a news conference with japan's prime minister today, president trump reacted to the ninth circuit court's ruling against his temporary travel bab and its potential impact on america's security. listen. >> we are going to keep our country safe. we'll be doing something very rapidly having to do with additional security for our country. you'll be seeing that sometime next week. >> eric: joining us now with reaction from the white house, kellyanne conway, senior advisor to president trump. so, kellyanne, what's this all t about?
i think the president called them new steps and we will be seeing them very rapidly. >> well, we have many differentw options in moving forward. as you know, eric, yesterday's decision did not effect the merits at all. we're very confident, fully confident we will prevail on the merits. there is nothing that the ninth circuit did yesterday that calls in to question the president's ability under the statute and under his constitutional authority to keep the homeland safe, which is precisely his point. so there are a number of different steps. we can obviously go back to the district court. some people said they can get all the way to thehe supreme court. he certainly always has the opportunity to put out new executive orders. but the president will make that decision in due course. i just want to make clear that the branches are equal under our constitution.d and in this case, the court seemed to supplant the president's judgment about national security with its own. that's not an appropriate use of its power. >> eric: one of the other options available to theth president is to continue thehe travel ban. he could literally instruct his
-- tsa, the border security, to say hey, we're going to continun the travel ban. let the supreme court tell us not to do that. >> well, and what the president said today in that really remarkable joint press conference with prime minister abe, they had a terrific day together here at the white house, meeting privately first, having lunch thereafter, and then having that joint press conference for allt to witness. what he said there is that extreme vetting was his idea, that candidate trump came up with that idea when he was running based on the information that he had received, based on the entities that attend to these matters. and since then as president, as commander-in-chief, he, of course, receives his daily presidential briefing. he has access to information that you and i don't. and he is that much more convinced that in the interest of keeping this nation safe, that he will take the steps necessary, and we knowst constitutionally and statutorily he is within his rights to do that. >> eric: does the administration think the courts are playing
politics? >> well, more broadly speaking, we believe that judges should not play politics at all. and we respect the fact that the three branches are separate and independent and also equal. one is not supreme over the other. if there are politics in any particular judicial decision, then the president and his spokespeople have a right to call that out. what really concerns us here is that a fair reading of the statute and the constitution, none of which were affected at a all by a very narrowly prescribed tro ruling, the president is well within hisis authority. and i would add he has a duty and responsibility to do this and also, eric, it's something that he put front and center in his campaign. donald trump beat a formerer secretary of state, a former united states senator who was united states senator in new york on 9/11, who, and a former first lady, he beat that individual based on his much
more clear and robust and tough position on these matters. >> eric: i don't want to cut you off, but you mentioned 9/11. is there any initiative?e? are we going to look forward to, maybe the next couple days, next couple of weeks, on some sort of gitmo strategy going forward? >> well, the president has said he will address any number of w the issues that he talked about during the campaign. remember, first and foremost, this man that i work with every day, he is focused on the nation's security and, you know, in that regard, he has stated in the past his position on guantanamo bay. he has stated his position on terrorism. he has stated his position on isis. they are not to be contained or, you know, ignored. they are to be eradicated off the face of the earth. t even in his joint press conference and his meetings today with prime minister abe, of course, they are talking about how their relationship, the japanese-u.s. relationship is one of the cornerstones of freedom and prosperity and democracy. but it also goes to national security interests, security interests internationally. >> eric: let's talk about this also.
today it's been resonating, "the washington post," kellyanne, as you know, claims that secretary flynn had talked to the russian people about sanctions prior to donald trump being sworn in as the next president, 45th president of the united states, which would violate some laws, some rules. governor mike pence responded this way. >> i talked to general flynn about that conversation. they did not discuss anything having to do with the united states' decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against russia. >> eric: so we're at a standstill here. flynn says he doesn't recall making those comments with the russians regarding sanctions. "the washington post" claims they have nine sources. your thoughts? where is the administration on that? >> my thought is, it's not for me to comment any further on that at this time, eric. i will repeat thatc. vice president pence's office or his spokesman has said that the
vice president, in that tv interview, was basing his comments on a conversation thatm he had with general flynn.n. all of that is out in the public domain. so i will just repeat that and leave that there. >> eric: so do you think "the washington post" got ithe wrong? >> i think that these are very highly sensitive matters, and i would prefer not to comment any further. >> eric: okay. one of the other topics bubbling up all week, as you know, the offhand comment, the remark you made about ivanka trump's clothing line. you said you would support it. it created quite a stir. can we take a listen to a little sound from jason chaffetz town hall.t take a listen. >> we sent a very candid, very direct letter to the white house and the office of government ethics. they need to investigate it. what kellyanne conway was wrong. it should never happen again. >> eric: all right, kellyanne, tell me, the president, i think he gave you some words of support? >> he did, indeed. that part i will reveal. he said he backs me 100%.
and that he knows that -- and that -- we will leave it at that. in other words, as i said before, i'm very blessed to work for a man who has been pro-woman his entire career. he has hired and promoted women in the trump corporation, the trump campaign, the trump cabinet, the trump west wing. it's just natural for him to do that. i appreciate the fact that hees understands i meant no malice and that he backsfa me 100%. he understands the fire that we all take here as well. i just hope sometime soon, eric, that the president -- forget meg that the president of the united states who was elected will get the credit he deserves for, in just first short three weeks, boosting wages, helping to create jobs, protect jobs, keep them here. taking meaningful steps towards tax reform. we are going to have tax relief and tax reform in this country that we have never seen before.n blow the wheels off the 1986 -- repeal and replace obamacare. he is doing amazing things for this country. i don't want to be a distraction. i just want him to get the
credit. i'm really happy he supports me. >> eric: do you think jason chaffetz is going too far with this?s? is this water under the bridge already?u >> i'm not going to comment on congressman -- chairman chaffetz' particular comment about me. i just know it was a really rough town hall because i watched on tv. i know it's a district that he won with 75% of the vote, but there seemed to be a lot of folks there trying tool make thr point, opposition party certainly. the democrats, i think the political left more generally is very animated and hysterical these days. look what they have done to oury supreme court -- look what they have done with cabinet nominees, over seven h now. what were all those sleepless nights for obstructing and d trying to embarrass andd humiliate, and we have betsy devos and tom price and jeff sessions and the rest of them in our cabinet now and will continue to. i think all of our nominees will be confirmed. this president has put together the most conservative and qualified, brilliant cabinet in
modern memory. and he deserves to have them all confirmed.d we need secretaries of commerce and treasury. n >> eric: all right. >> and agriculture. >> eric: kellyanne, i appreciate your time. i'm up against a break. thank you very much. >> thank you, eric. >> eric: up next, what can the trump administration do next after the ninth circuit's refusal to reinstate the travel ban? that debate moments away. ♪ why are you checking your credit score? you dor, do you? the doctor said it's not contagious. [coughing] credit karma, huh? yeah, it's free. credit karma. give yourself some credit.
>> eric: in the impact segment tonight, the fallout from t >> eric: in the impact segment tonight, the fallout from the ninth's circuit ruling on president trump's travel ban following last night's decision, washington state attorneyt. general who has led the push against the ban sounded off about what he thinks the president should do next. >> the president has a choice. he can continue to fight this or he can tear up this executive order and start over. i would strongly encourage him
to consider the latter course of action. >> eric: is that the right way to go?in joining us to analyze, from santa ana, california professor john eastman, and from washington, jesse byrnes, subordinate editor at "the hill." start with you, professor eastman. the right way to go, we have heard all day what the trump administration plans to do. looks like they may go back to the ninth circuit and they also may write another e.o., executive order. what should he do? >> i don't think those are mutually exclusive. i think he should do both. the fact of the matter is this attorney general is going to challenge whatever he does with his executive order because the one that he previously issued was patently constitutional. square on in support of authorized by the existing law. law i might add near the ninth circuit or judge robart bothered to site in their opinion saying the president is most likely to proceed on the merits. i think the president should go back to the trial court and lay the case out, but he ought to issue new executive orders segmenting each of the components of this one.
saying there is due process rights for people coming over from somalia never been here. the supreme court has said otherwise, numerous times. here is that executive order. >> eric: let me get jesse byrnes in here. there are been constitutional law professors all day talking about, if you take the executive order on its merits, not on standing, but on its merits, likely the trump administration will win at the supreme court level. >> well, what the ninth circuit found, one of the two things that it ruled, essentially, was that it rejected the government's argument that they had to reinstate this travel ban immediately for national security reasons. of course, if it goes to the supreme court, and if there seems to be some confusion over whether the trump administratioe will actually go that route, they said tonight that all options are on the table. but if it does go to the supreme court, right now there are only eight justices. if it deadlocked 4-4, this ninth circuit ruling, which essentially blocks this travel ban, would be the one that would remain in effect. >> eric: professor, do you agree
with that? you think it would end up being a 4-4 tie?e? >> i hope not. i hope it would be 6-2 or unanimous. the law is so patently clear here. the supreme court itself has said questions of who to admit into the united states are not solely withing the powers of the political branches. largely immune from judicial review. and the statute that gives the president authority here could not be more clear that the president has this authority. so i would hope that the supreme court would decide this unanimously and push back what, quite frankly -- and i said in your other guest's magazine earlier today or newspaper, i think this is a coup d'etat, refusing to recognize the election results last october. >> eric: we know the ninth circuit is a liberal court. go to texas, you will probably have more conservative opinion coming out of texas. ninth circuit decided to take it up and push back on trump'ss travel ban. >> variety of options here. one thing that kind of broke late tonight, we understand a
judge on the ninth circuit is requesting the full panel to review it. of course, the ruling yesterday was just from a three-judge panel. it was unanimous which does complicate the president's -- >> eric: but unanimous in a ver> liberal circuit. >> right. you know, if the trump administration continues to pursue this at the ninth circuit level, which could happen in the next couple of weeks, we don't know yet, then that court is going to be the one at play. but the bigger -- alluding to what john said earlier -- if it plays out in the federal district court up in seattle, the merits of the case is what the administration feels like they have got a stronger case on, and trump is going to, you know, continue to play it out there.w, at the same time, he might brinm forward a separate executive order because he wants somethinh to get done. >> eric: professor, throughout the day there were rumblings that possibly the court was upset -- did we lose the professor? i think we lost the professor. okay. the professor is back. there were rumblings all day today that maybe the court was upset because at one point
mr. trump, president trump had said that the court -- this isn't a case for the court, shouldn't be heard by the court, and they pushed back on that. >> yeah. no, i mean, there's a provision in the law on the visas that says the secretary of state has that authority.. and congress has specificallyve deprived the lower courts of having any jurisdiction to consider such matters.de they recognize this is in the core wheelhouse of the executive power. you know, what was the department of justice supposed to do in open court at the hearing earlier this week? announce all of the intelligence we have about which people we are following and who might be terrorists coming in to this country so that we advise them? there is a reason the executivei operates in certain areas outside of judicial review.ec and this is one of them. and, you know, the combination of the executive and the congress here, like i say, it's palpably clear the president was well within his authority here. >> eric: and, jesse, final thought on this.
give you about 30 seconds or so. this is not unusual for a president to first lose one appeal and win another appeal or at supreme court level. >> yeah, no.ba we saw it with the obama administration, ninth circuit appeals cut in general challenge of going to the supreme court and seeing a different ruling. but i think something to remember with all of this is that this order, this restraining order that was imposed last week in seattle,t that's going to stay in place until there is some type of other ruling. at this point, the trump administration, what they could do, and what we're expecting at this point, at least, is for them to craft a maybe narrower executive order that exempts some of these refugees whilecu pursuing the legal case. >> eric: i have to leave it right there. thank you very much. coming up, the trump administration ramping up efforts to take enemies abroad. who should be target number one? lieutenant ralph peters joins to us weigh in next. to esurance could save hundreds. so if you switch to esurance, saving is a pretty safe bet. auto and home insurance for the modern world.
esurance. an allstate company. click or call. (vo) when it comes to helzberg diamonds knows bigger isn't always better. our beautiful diamond heart pendant is just $299.99. that's $200 off! helzberg diamonds. here's to love. come close, come close. i like that. [ all sounds come to a crashing halt ] ah. when your pain reliever stops working, your whole day stops. awww. try this. for minor arthritis pain, only aleve is fda approved to work for up to 12 straight hours with just one pill. thank you. come on everybody. aleve. live whole. not part.
>> eric: in the personal >> eric: in the personal story segment tonight, dealing with america's enemies. earlier today, president trump addressed the dangers facing the country during his news conference with japan's prime minister. >> while i have been president, which is just for a very short period of time, i have learned tremendous things that you could only learn, frankly, if you were in a certain position, namely president. and there are tremendous threats to our country. we will not allow that to happen. i can tell you that right now. >> eric: joining us now to analyze, from washington, lieutenant colonel ralph peters. to say that without a doubt vladimir putin is the greatest threat to the united states. make that case,t sir. >> it's not only because russia has vladimir putin at its head and has arsenal of nuclear weapons that can destroy us. vladimir putin is the first european head of state since
adolf hitler to invade his neighbors. vladimir putin is doing his best to break up nato, the most successful peacetime alliance in history, and a bargain for the u.s, he trying to break up the eu. he is conniving and bribing and propaganda war to neo-fascist. he is determined to drive us out of the middle east. syria, iraq. very successful. he is allied with our arch enemy iran. give me two more. no, give me two more here. >> eric: go for it. >> also, the military is slaughtering, mass slaughtering civilians in syria, drivingve their relatives into the arms of the jihadis. by the way, he murders political opponents, journalists, activists. he does have one redeeming quality. >> eric: it is? >> he loves dogs. >> eric: okay, so i don't have a ton of time. i want to push back on you. i hate to be called isolationist, all those things you mentioned are horrible and bad, but they, frankly, don't threaten the united states per se. i will, however, make the case
that iran does. you mentioned iran. iran are the one who -- the mullahs and the people chanted "death to america."ar they're weaponizing. they are testing ballistic missiles. they are ready to be nuclear and they finance terror that ends up coming to our shores at times. i would say iran is a greater threat than russia. >> well, iran is small beer. we can handle iran if it comes down to it. by the way, you know, breaking effect does directlyme y america. charles lindbergh in wwii was convinced what happened in europe didn't matter. guess what? i'm sorry, putin directly affects the security of the united states. he means us ill will. he is not our enemy because he wanted to be. he has chosen to be enemy. >> eric: is he still though? yes, we have had problems with russia in the past.. i don't know, is it crazy to say that maybe he doesn't want to take us out and maybe we don't have to take russia out? maybe there can be one super power or one, i don't know, smaller power or two. >> you think it's okay if he invades his p neighbors?
>> eric: no. i don't think it's okay, but i don't consider him a great threat to the united states. >> is it okay that he interfered in the united states election? >> eric: first of all, colonel, i love you, we can wait to see the proof of that and still waiting for that evidence. >> [laughs] the sun shines in the daytime, eric. >> eric: can we talk about this back and forth between senator john mccain and president trump? john mccain leveling the first, i don't know, grenade at the presidency saying that the yemen raid was a failure. >> i think mccain has a temper. and he was reacting to the claims of raging success by the white house. now, look, this raid in yemen was neither a total success nor a total failure. i it was combat. things go wrong sometimes. the raid achieved some of its goals. it didn't achieve all of its goals. a u.s. seal was killed. people get killed in combat. it's not like hollywood where everything is smooth and slick. >> eric: but mccain fired the first shot when he said it was a failure.
and then the white house came back and said, how dare you do that. that diminishes the loss of the s.e.a.l. >> the white house had been claiming great success. you know, when the white house plays politics with the death op a u.s. service member, whether it's a s.e.a.l. or snuffy the garbage collector, that is just wrong. now, john mccain has a temper. i will tell you, he is a great patriot who literally bled forhi this country.. and if i have to pick, you're going to make me pick, eric, i will pick john mccain every time. >> eric: i will leave it right there. colonel peters, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> eric: new student newspaper yiannopoulos.. staye. tuned. don't let unanswered legal questions hold you up, because we're here, we're here, and we've got your back. legalzoom. legal help is here.
>> eric: in the unresolved >> eric: in the "unresolved problem" segment tonight, the far left's war against free speech.sp last week, the university of california berkeley descended into violence ahead of a speech by breitbart editor milo yiannopoulos. the riotcaused $100,000 in damage, forced the speech's cancellation. despite that, the uc berkeley newspaper has now published five essays actually praising the violence and opposing yiannopoulos' right to speak. joining us now to analyze from
washington, from the national center for public policy research, horace cooper, along jamila bey. we know about the right of speech. but in the constitution it's talked about as a peaceable protest. in other words, peaceful protests are protected not violent protests. >> absolutely. and frankly, these young students at berkeley, who are among the smartest in the world, put themselves on the line inve defense of their fellow students. one of the highest things that we hope our people do in battle and they are doing it already at school. to say we do not accept the violence that meelo --os milo, i'm sorry, mispronounced his name -- brings to the people he chooses to out. bringing out their names of people. >> eric: jamila, we agree on the right to protest this speech. >> right. >> eric: we disagree on the part where the violence was actually -- i don't know, held on a pedestal by u.c. berkeley. five op-eds publish the violence part of it? >> these are young people. may change their minds.
the arguments they made were sound. >> let's bring horace in. i can't keep cutting you off. how can you say it's a sound argument when the constitution protects free speech but not violent free speech. i want to bring horace in. >> here's the thing. these arguments weren't about being sound. these arguments were about justifying violence. if five people go to a woolworth's restaurant to peaceably demonstrate that theyy believe they should have the right to be there, the rhetoric that was demonstrated in these op-eds and the behavior that we saw at berkeley means that it would have been okay for masked intruders to go to the woolworths and beat the hell out of them because they don't agree with what they're standing for. the first amendment's purpose is for us to have a civil disagreement, to bring the strong argument, not violence. this was a terrible example, and
if they are this bright, then this is dangerous, a sign of where we are headed. >> eric: and jamila, you know, uc berkeley claims to be the birthplace of free speech. the free speech on milo's part, he wasn't allowed to get up and speak. >> he wasn't allowed to get up and read a list of illegals and get up and give information so that those that would do harm to such students could find them. could find their professors. find their families and friend. that's what they were protesting. >> eric: so let me repeat your words. so let me repeat your words. he wasn't allowed to read a lisg or give information.ea he wasn't allowed to do that. yet the protesters were allowed to be riotous and violent. horace? >> yeah. this is an argument that somehow something someone is going to say gives me a heckler's veto not just to interject myself but to burn the place down, to threaten and assault and attack people.
what if this had been a gay pride event on the campus?at and some individuals decided to put masks on and they were going to shut this down because they didn't agree. and they were going to do it with violence? >> well, that certainly wouldn't have happened at berkeley. >> this is unacceptable. >> what is unacceptable is that milo has made millions of dollars on going and bringing violence and bringing terror to individuals he doesn't like. we know that he went on a college campus to out -- >> if that were true --- >> that is absolutely true. milo has a quarter-million-dollar book deal. >> he has not been indicted. he has not injured one person. he has not engaged in a violent act against one person. >> you're wrong. you are absolutely wrong. milo got kicked off of twitter because he called his minions out in order to -- >> eric: hold on. hold on. clarify, jamila, what violence did milo himself perpetrate?
>> milo himself did not throw a brick -- >> eric: thank you. e >> or hurl a slur. milo said hey, everyone if you want to make it -- >> eric: that may be speech to some people but that's still protected speech. >> that is not protected on a college campus.haec >> eric: of course it is. >> this is america. >> berkeley students have a right to say no. we are standing up for the least among us. we are standing up for those who do not have the voice. >> we will throw a brick at you. >> eric: i'm going to leave it right here. jamila, 20 seconds to finish up. >> these students did what they learn in class. they stood up together, they s spoke out together. >> well, that's a shame. >> police showed up. >> eric: they learned to create $100,000 in damage with broken windows. throwing fireworks at police and small bombs. this is what they're learning at uc berkeley. i thank god my son goes to colorado.
i've got to leave it right here. >> every student has the right to speak up, and i commend berkeley students. >> eric: speak up. we agree with speech. we don't agree with violence. horace and jamila, thank you. o'reilly's interview with president trump made headlines across the world and played a big role in this week's news developments. we will take a look at it right after this. with an armpit on the side of your head. that's not just some battery. that's a duracell battery. that's a power you can trust. so this year, they're getting a whole lot more. box 365, the calendar. everyone knows my paperless, safe driver,
mosquitoes are the ultimate field biologists, taking blood samples from every animal they bite. microsoft and its partners are using smart traps to capture mosquitoes and study the dna they collect. using the microsoft cloud, we can analyze over 100 million pieces of dna in every sample, so we can identify where diseases come from and how they spread. with the cloud, what used to take 30 days now takes 12 hours, and every second counts. if we can detect new viruses before they spread, we may someday prevent outbreaks before they begin. we must be passionate. we must be bold. and never stop striving in our desire to make an impact.
>> "the o'reilly factor," the number one cable news show >> "the o'reilly factor," the number one cable news show for 16 years and counting. >> eric: thanks for staying with us.'m i'm eric bolling in for bill o'reilly. f and in the "factor follow-up" segment tonight, another look at bill's super bowl interview with president trump, dealing with iran with a key focus in the discussion with today giving a stark reminder of the contemptuous relationship. hundreds rallied for the 1979 islamic revolution chanting "death to america" along with burning the american flag and f effigies of president trump. in a wide-ranging interview with bill, president trump addressed a new strategy to deal with iran along with other critical issues facing the country. here it is. >> let's talk about iran. your assessment, do you think we're on a collision course, we being the united states of america. >> worse deal that we negotiated. >> the nuke deal you are talking
about. >> absolutely. the deal made by the obama administration. i think it's a shame we had a deal like that and we hadd to sign a deal like that. and there was no reason to do it. and if you are going to do it, have a good deal. we gave them $1.7 billion in cash, which is unheard of. and we put the money up. and we have really nothing to show for it. >> bill: possibly you tear it up?si >> we'll see what happens. >> bill: it's possible? >> i can say this. they have total disregard for our country. they are the number one s terrorist state.ve and they are sending money all over the place and weapons. and can't do that. >> bill: sanctions. that's how you are going to start with them. >> to start it. >> bill: moving a carrier, right? >> i always criticized president obama, have an announcement they are going in to mosul or going to some place and give the name, the date, the time. i don't believe in that.
>> bill: so you are not real bullish on iran at this point. >> no, i'm not bullish. i think they have total i understand, that deal, i would have lived with this if they said, okay, we're all together now. but it was just the opposite. it's like they are emboldened. they follow our planes. they circle our ships with their little boats, and they lostt respect because they can't believe anybody could be so stupid as to make a deal like that. >> bill: you talked to putin last week. you had a busy week last week. >> busy week and a half. >> bill: do you respect putin? >> i do respect putin. >> bill: why? >> i respect a lot of people. that doesn't mean i'm going to get along with them. h he is the leader of his country. i say it's better to get along with russia than not. and if russia helps us in the fight against isis, which is a major fight in islamic terrorism all over the world. >> bill: right. >> major fight, that's a good thing. will i get along withh him, i have no idea. >> bill: putin is a killer though. putin is a killer. >> a lot of killers.
we have got a lot of killers. what, do you think our country is so innocent? do you think our country is so innocent? >> bill: i don't know of any government leaders that are killers in america. >> well, take a look at what we have done too. we have made a lot of mistakes. i have been against the war in iraq since the beginning. >> bill: mistakes are different than -- >> a lot of mistakes, but a lot of people were killed. a lot of killers around, believe me. >> bill: let's talk about mexico.. there was a report you talked to president, if his army couldn't handle the drug cartels, that u.s. army soldiers would. did you say that? >> we have to do something about the cartels. did i talk to him about it? i want to help him with it. i think he is a very good man. we have a very good relationship as you probably know. he seemed very willing to get help from us because he has got a problem. >> bill: got a problem. >> it's a real problem for us. don't forget those cartels are operating in our country and they are poisoning the youth of our country.oi >> bill: at this point, do you consider mexico a corrupt
country? because this stuff has been going on for decades. >> i love the people. i really like this administration. i think he is a good man. we get along very well. but they have problems controlling aspects of their p country. there is no question about it. and i would say the drugs and the drug cartels, number one. >> bill: have you figured out what kind of a tariff you are going to levy on mexico to pay for the wall? >> right now it's very unfavorable. r right now we are losing our jobs to mexico. you look at the plants. you look at these massive plants. i have to tell you, i have turned it around already. ford has been phenomenal. they are canceling the plant. >> bill: you intimidated them. >> no, no. they want to do what's right. >> bill: they want to do what's right? why didn't they do what's right in the past? >> wrong people spoke to them. they will do what's right and bringing jobs back to michigan and ohio and pennsylvania and all the places that have lost a job. a so that's already happening. i have think you are going to
see a tremendous job growth in this country. >> bill: let's turn to domestic policy. i just spent the week in california. as you know, they are now voting on whether they should become a sanctuary state. so california and the usa are on a collision course. how do you see it? >> well, i think it's c ridiculous. sanctuary cities, as you know, i'm very much opposed to sanctuary cities. they breed crime. there's a lot of problems. if we have to, we will defund. we give tremendous amounts of money to california. >> bill: so you are going toif defund -- >> california, in many ways, is out of control, as you know. obviously the voters agree. otherwise they wouldn't have voted for me. >> bill: so defunding is your weapon of choice. >> well, it's a weapon. i don't want to defund awi state or city.t >> bill: that's what you are willing to do. >> i want to give them the money they need to properly operate as a city and state. going to have sanctuary cities? certainly.
>> bill: is there any validity to the criticism of you that you say things you can't back up factually? and as the president, if you say, for example, that there are 3 million illegal aliens who voted, and then you don't a have the data to back it up, some people are going to say that's irresponsible for a president to say. that is there any validity to that? >> well, many people have come out and said i'm right. >> bill: i know. but you have got to have data to back that up. some of it has to do with the registration. when you look at the registration and you see dead people that have voted. when you see people that are registered in two states and that voted in two states.ee when you see other things. when you see illegals, people that are not on citizens and they are on registration rolls. look, bill, we can be babies, but you take a look at the registration. illegals, dead people. it's really bad situation. it's really bad. >> bill: you think you are going to be proven correct in that
statement? lr >> i think i already have. a lot of people have come out and said i'm correct. >> bill: data has to show that 3 million illegals voted. >> forget that. a forget all of that. just take a look at the registration. i'm going to set up a commission to be headed by vice president mike pence and we're going to look at it very, very carefullya >> bill: that's good. let's get to the bottom of this. 2017, can americans expect a tax cut? >> i think so, yes. and i think before the end of the year i would like to say yes. >> bill: okay. can americans in 2017 expect a new healthcare plan rolled out by the trump administration? this year? >> yeah. s the process, and maybe it will take until sometime into next year, but we are certainly going to be in the process. very complicated. we are going to be putting it in fairly soon. i think that, yes, i would like to say by the end of the year, at least the rudiments. but we should have something within the year and following year. >> eric: when we come back, president trump's new immigration orders taking center stage in arizona after an illegal immigrant deportation sparks a major protest.s
don't go away. painter to quit part way, i think you missed a spot. so when it comes to pain relievers, why put up with just part of a day? aleve, live whole not part. you want this color over the whole house? and now we unleash it onwerful your taxes.pecies has created. hello my name is watson. yep. h&r block and ibm watson together. come see us and get your taxes won.
>> eric: in the "back of the book" segment tonight, cracking down on illegal immigration. immigration officials in phoenix are under fire after following through with the 2013 deportation order against the illegal immigrant convicted of felony criminal impersonation. the woman's deportation leading to fierce protests among immigration activists. they claim immigration officials are now targeting individuals who pose no violent threat. today, homeland security secretary john kelly defended the deportation. >> are the right people being deported? >> they were picked up.>> they were subject to removal. there are court orders against -- about removing these people. again, some have fought removal for years and years and years.
so when their luck ran out, so to speak, and an immigration judge said this person, male or female, whatever, needs to be removed and they go remove them, the argument that they have been here for so many years i think is not a strong argument. >> eric: joining us now with "washington examiner" columnist kristen soltis anderson and with us here in the studio attorney danielle mclaughlin. your thoughts on this removal? look, they broke the law they need to go, right? >> and donald trump always said if he became president, this is what he was going to do. he was going to prioritize deportation of criminals first. and this is what his executive order said. the thing he has going for him is that with this action and the action he has taken against sanctuary cities, it's among the most popular things we are seeing in public opinion polls of all the things president trump has said he wanted to do.
the question is coming down to implementation. are they actually getting the violent folks or have they cast perhaps too wide a net and catching people with more sympathetic stories and more reason of a stay. >> eric: okay, your thoughts on deportation? >> i agree ultimately she was a felon, convicted felon. a sympathetic story brought here as a 14-year-old.st i'm not sure if she makes a best case. if you are with trump and really want to take a hard line, she is a great case, because it really shows that he is willing to deport pretty much anybody. >> eric: let me read this political headline. "this past weekend, i.c.e. engaged in nationwide enforcement operations to takeno into custody and return adults who entered this country legally." now, kristin, here is the catch. that political headline is from
obama administration.y >> you're absolutely right. obama got a little bit of flack from the left, some folks called him deporter in chief. you did not see the level of outrage that you are likely to see to president trump. folks on the left may not have been eager to criticize president obama, now that president trump is taking his policy and dialing to 11 and actually putting teeth behind it, you will see a lot more people turning out in the streets to protest. >> eric: this is not true under presidenthi trump. president obama actually started.s this person was caught in 2013. >> absolutely. i.c.e. raids back in massachusetts earlier in obama's administration, he deported 3 million people. he has done a lot of the work at the border particularly. the issue is whether people want to see people here illegally have a path to citizenship or not. 60% of american people want to see that whether that'sig citizenship or legal status implicates the voting rights of these people all together. there is public support for it.s that's where the rubber is going to hit the road for trump. >> eric: kristin, there was word that president trump may have been open to the gang of eight
and some of that push to allow citizenship for people here illegally. and then they walked it back a bit.he your thoughts? w >> yeah, that makes sense to me they would walk it back a bit because the gang of 8 bill had been so totally toxic on the right. marco rubio walked back his support. if you are president of the united states, your job is to execute the laws you have in front of you.fo right now, because there is no comprehensive immigration reform, you have a lot of folks that you can make a really compelling case they deserve to be able to stay, but there is no legal path for them to be able to do so. if you're president, your hands are kind of tied. your job is to execute the laws as they are on the books. it's up to congress to decide what they want do legislatively about fixing that issue.it >> eric: one of the other things that is that candidate trump -- president trump promised on the campaign trail. >> he did. want to see these implemented.
another example is the wall, 60% of americans are against that now that they think they are going to have to pay for it with tax dollars. campaigning is one thing.av governing is another. >> eric: can't take the wall back now. promised the wall. >> he did promise the wall. if it becomes politically toxic, he is going to have to make a decision. >> eric: kristin and danielle, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> eric: straight ahead, a weekend interview you won't want to miss. we will be back in just a minute. ere to be put under a microscope, we can see all the bacteria that still exists. polident's unique micro clean formula works in just 3 minutes, killing 99.99% of odor causing bacteria. for a cleaner, fresher, brighter denture every day.
you know, the kind of driver who always buckles up... comes to a complete stop... and looks both ways, no matter what. because esurance believes that's the kind of driver who deserves to save money on car insurance. in fact, safe drivers who switch from geico to esurance could save hundreds. so if you switch to esurance, saving is a pretty safe bet. auto and home insurance for the modern world. esurance. an allstate company. click or call. >> eric: before we go, some important things they want to bring your attention. first, be sure to catch tomorrow -- airs at 8:00 p.m. eastern. i literally canceled all my plans tomorrow to watch it come i'm not going skiing come i'm not doing anything i'm going tos watch, tape it, dvr it and maybe watch it again right after. be sure to check out the newest episode of the contributingvr factor podcast.
these podcasts are great, bill o'reilly himself reveals which of his nine presidential interviews was the best of his career. you can find the contributing factor, that podcast is at itunes at bill o'reilly. don't forget to preview your copy of bill's upcoming book old-school, of course if you sign up for a billoreilly.com premium membership, you can get any one of his books free of charge. finally, ready for this? i'm very proud to announce my own new upcoming book, it's about corruption and cronyism in washington, it's called "the swamp." guess why it's called the swamp? drain the swamp, right? it's in stores on june 27th, you have all that what the market thanks for watching tonight, i'm eric bolling in for bill o'reilly who will be back on monday. watch that podcast, watch that "waters world," the spinner
stops right here, because we're looking out for you. ♪ ♪ >> tucker: welcome to "tucker carlson tonight," education secretary has been at her post for all three days but protesters are already using harassment to keep her from doing her job. we'll find out what's setting them off. we'll talk to a professor for a novel idea for fixing poverty in this country, give everybody a government job. last week at nyu, writers shut down a planned a speech by vice cofounder gavin mcginnis,ee one student says this speakers organizer should be punished for this provocation. in a piece for it to make written for "washington square news, that nyu student newspaper, they say that college republicans